The Failure of Feminism?

[vidcc]

I'm sure the gay and feminist lobbies would appreciate the comparison, but it's a bit of a stretch here.
Get off the homosexual bit. The comparison was about equality, acceptance and not highlighting differences.

Katherine Harris probably assumes she can do the job, that is why she aspires to reach higher, but whether she does so out of an allegiance to other women is a matter of fit and form, don't you think?

By your reasoning, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleezza Rice, hell, even Margaret Thatcher are feminists.

At whatever level, be it individual or as a whole

By my reasoning, such women achieve high station by eschewing the requisite feminist idea, rhetoric and compulsion to get ahead by continuously (and mainly) stating all men are assholes.
That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.
See the difference?

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

[Biggles]

I don't think feminism has failed so much as evolved. The early proto-type involved hairy armpits and dungarees and in many respects was a distraction from genuine issues of the vote, equal pay, maternity rights, sexism in the work place, harrassment, property rights etc., etc.,

The world has moved on a long way from a wife being little more than a chattel and any property she owned becoming her husbands. In less than 100 years an awful lot has changed and thankfully it doesn't particularly need to involve dungarees.

Sex and the use of sex to sell products is unlikely to change as it panders to fairly primal instincts. It is route one for the advertisers (to borrow from football). However, just compare modern adverts to ones from the 40s 50s and 60s. These might demonstrate how far things have moved on. I guarantee they will make you cringe.

What is far more prevalent today is sexuality in advertising rather than pure sexist nonsense. Some would argue that this is more insidious - perhaps so, it is certainly more demanding. One could potentially be the perfect housewife if one bought Fairy - it is bloody sight harder to look like Halle Berry.

Of course modern feminists point out that there are still inequalities of opportunity. How one looks is also still a significant factor. However, this is something that is becoming increasingly important to males too. In that sense a degree of equality is developing - although it may be equality of misery.

In summary, Feminism is a work in progress and moves by small degrees rather than big leaps.

So, feminism is in it's, um...infancy, so to speak?

I think so.

Of course there are many strands to the feminist argument and some are driven by broader socio-political interests with very big axes to grind (and fondly retain their dungarees ) However, I do not think many would argue that we should return to 19th century inequalities between citizens of different class, gender, or race or, indeed, these days, sexuality.

I would agree with Vidcc that there is tendancy to try and demonise political debate by holding up a complete numpty like Pat Robertson and say he is all Christianity is about. Likewise, feminists with somewhat scary views regarding scythes and male genitalia are held up as representing those who fought hard to obtain very legitimate rights such as the vote and who still work to correct remaining inequalities. Feminism has become something bete noire by some commentators but if pressed I doubt they would advocate the institution of a Taleban style regime (well some might )

[j2k4]

I'm sure the gay and feminist lobbies would appreciate the comparison, but it's a bit of a stretch here.
Get off the homosexual bit. The comparison was about equality, acceptance and not highlighting differences.

Katherine Harris probably assumes she can do the job, that is why she aspires to reach higher, but whether she does so out of an allegiance to other women is a matter of fit and form, don't you think?

By your reasoning, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleezza Rice, hell, even Margaret Thatcher are feminists.

At whatever level, be it individual or as a whole

By my reasoning, such women achieve high station by eschewing the requisite feminist idea, rhetoric and compulsion to get ahead by continuously (and mainly) stating all men are assholes.
That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.
See the difference?

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

Okay, to be blunt:

Get off the "equality" bit-insofar as I am concerned, the only salient fact is, can you (with no reference or deference to sex, skin color, or life-style orientation) do the job or not?

Never mind laws, quotas, or any of the other crap; that is all I want to know.

Now, I fully realize your response is going to be along the lines of, "...but protections are needed, because bias exists!"

My response is, in turn, that from the point-of-view of the "offended" party, his/her attitude must change, or the bias will continue.

I'm not going to change your mind about conservatives, but it's only because conservatives such as myself are not so thoroughly rooted in society that you have no gripes left.

That day is approaching, however.

BTW-don't ask me to assume your proper intent in referring to another thread, the relation to which exists only in your own mind.

You dragged in the gay angle apropos of no apparent context, a suspect tactic in any case, as it begs ideological simplification while also abhoring it.

You've strewn clouds upon an issue which had no need of them, and called to mind a quote from Samuel Clemons, which is approximately thus:

"Many commentators have shed much darkness upon the subject, and, if they persist, we shall soon know nothing whatsoever about it."

After all this, I still don't know how you excuse/dismiss the comments of Zed's child's mother, which was my entree to this thread.

[j2k4]

Feminism is about equality.

Not according to those who proudly wear the label of Feminist.

Feminism today is defined by the predominant presenting media image, and is still personnified by such as Gloria Steinem.

Women who genuinely look to get ahead should look to the examples right before their eyes, like Secretary Rice or others I've mentioned, but when have you ever seen or heard them quoted or queried on matters of upward mobility as they apply to women?

It doesn't happen, because they merely achieve, while eschewing the label.

Amazing, huh?

It's quite funny, actually...at this point in time, I'm hoping Dr. Rice will at some juncture run for President.

She would have my enthusiastic support, but somehow, casting my vote for her would be construed as anti-women, wouldn't it?

[vidcc]

After all this, I still don't know how you excuse/dismiss the comments of Zed's child's mother, which was my entree to this thread.

I don't believe I have made any comment about your entree on the above.

I'll respond to the rest a little later, I have to go out.

[vidcc]

Feminism is about equality.

Not according to those who proudly wear the label of Feminist.

Feminism today is defined by the predominant presenting media image, and is still personnified by such as Gloria Steinem.

Women who genuinely look to get ahead should look to the examples right before their eyes, like Secretary Rice or others I've mentioned, but when have you ever seen or heard them quoted or queried on matters of upward mobility as they apply to women?

It doesn't happen, because they merely achieve, while eschewing the label.

Amazing, huh?

It's quite funny, actually...at this point in time, I'm hoping Dr. Rice will at some juncture run for President.

She would have my enthusiastic support, but somehow, casting my vote for her would be construed as anti-women, wouldn't it?

so after I said this (and biggles seems to agree)

That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

you go ahead and do exactly that.

I get the impression that you view equality movement as being about purely legal things. This I have to say is an impression I get with most of my conservative friends. They seem to think any "liberal" that talks about equality is talking numbers and laws.

It is not just about having laws where someone cannot be barred from applying . It's about educating that precisely the same worth applies and showing that "isms" are based on misconceptions and flawed thinking.
With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

[j2k4]

so after I said this (and biggles seems to agree)

That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.

Your definition of "right-winger" is a caricature, vid, and your "militant man-hater" is a term a caricuture would use.

That said, the standard-bearers of the "feminist movement" (the ones the media recognizes) are caricatures also.

Why they are so recognized, to the detriment of more worthy models, is a constant enigma.

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

In answer to that, I would merely say that feminism (the reasonable and proper brand) is not popularly represented in the media.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

The left doesn't do this?

It's about educating that precisely the same worth applies and showing that "isms" are based on misconceptions and flawed thinking.

-Isms?

Are you sure you want to go there?

I subscribe to conservatism.

You subscribe to liberalism, but pay lip service to, um...let's see...Independentism.

Yes-let's talk some more about isms!

With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

That last is a rather unfortunate construct, don't you think?

I'll give you a go at re-phrasing before I address it.

[vidcc]

Your definition of "right-winger" is a caricature, vid, and your "militant man-hater" is a term a caricuture would use.

That said, the standard-bearers of the "feminist movement" (the ones the media recognizes) are caricatures also.

Why they are so recognized, to the detriment of more worthy models, is a constant enigma.

I think you may actually be getting my point, I'm not so sure you realise it though.

-Isms?

Are you sure you want to go there?

I subscribe to conservatism.

You subscribe to liberalism, but pay lip service to, um...let's see...Independentism.

Yes-let's talk some more about isms!

I have no doubt you know the "isms" given the context of the thread refer to sex,race, etc.etc.etc. isms, but sure. even with your "isms" ignorance of said groups holds sway far more than ideological disagreements.
Liberals misrepresent conservative views and conservatives do likewise with liberal views. Many conservatives think rush speaks for liberals, that is where they go to find out what liberals think.

With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

That last is a rather unfortunate construct, don't you think?

I'll give you a go at re-phrasing before I address it.

give me an example of what you are thinking.

[j2k4]

I have no doubt you know the "isms" given the context of the thread refer to sex,race, etc.etc.etc. isms, but sure. even with your "isms" ignorance of said groups holds sway far more than ideological disagreements.

My isms ignorance?

BTW-precisely how do "ideological disagreements" take place in the absence of a minimum of two (2) isms?

Many conservatives think rush speaks for liberals, that is where they go to find out what liberals think.

He may indeed provide a forum of sorts for liberals, but if you mean to say you have conservative friends who think he speaks in the liberal tongue, then either you don't have the slightest idea what a conservative is, or (more likely) your friends who claim to be conservative are actually morons who have managed to hoodwink you.

With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

That last is a rather unfortunate construct, don't you think?

I'll give you a go at re-phrasing before I address it.

give me an example of what you are thinking.

Your point might be better served if you'd said simply that, ignorance is the cause of IN-equality.

Much better, I'm sure you'll agree.

[vidcc]

He may indeed provide a forum of sorts for liberals, but if you mean to say you have conservative friends who think he speaks in the liberal tongue, then either you don't have the slightest idea what a conservative is, or (more likely) your friends who claim to be conservative are actually morons who have managed to hoodwink you.

when rush says/rants "but but liberals think this.... or liberals want this.... certain people believe that is what liberals actually think or want. They don't listen to what liberals say, they listen to what rush says they say.
You have only to listen to his callers to confirm this...

I think you can get his show online

Your point might be better served if you'd said simply that, ignorance is the cause of IN-equality.

Much better, I'm sure you'll agree.

preventing equality / causing in-equality blah blah blah blah blah